Vote early, and....

[Stalins Organ]

Moybe - but it looks like any surprise comebacks will be in Iraq's war - not the US's.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Andreas]

Europe's problem is not oil, but gas. We are perfectly capable of buggering that up ourselves, thank you very much, no need for the US to be involved (and as a US DOS official once asked me "why on earth do we bother sorting out your problems?" I had no answer, and THAT does not happen very often I can assure you.) The guy wasn't exactly cast in the Rumsfeldian mould either, he is an enthusiastic Obama supporter.

As for China (or India, or Kazakhstan where I am as I write this) - they have a point. We spent 200 years pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and now that the problem with that is realised we expect others to sort it out. It's not exactly fair. The G7 have realised the problem and are throwing money at it to encourage tech transfer (about USD 7bn has been made available so far). How well that will be done will be interesting to see. Check on The Google for "clean technology fund".

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Ok, we *think* we know who he is - let me be specific, how about his policies? Do YOU know any of his policies and how he plans to make them work. Tax-cuts for 95% of the people with over a trillion dollars in proposed new spending; really?

"Drill baby drill" to make the US energy independent? The Marx Brothers could not make that one up, except it isn't actually funny.

Addressing the budget deficit by eliminating earmarks? Sure it's a good idea, but in current circumstances it is like suggesting that your wrecked car could be mended by replacing the front tyres.

Spending USD 300bn on buying homes at inflated prices? That does not seem very smart to me.

If you want to, you can easily see the holes in both sides's campaign policy proposals.

I understand your guy has lost and you seem to find that mildly upsetting. But you really need to take a deep breath, I think. Think of 2016.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

On US and EU energy policies you can read the Exec summaries of these two studies:

US http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1926 (should be available for free on 1/1/9)

EU http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=331 (should be available for free 1/1/10)

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Bloody forum does not let me edit...

I overlooked this one: If BTC and Middle East were cut off tomorrow, it'ld be game over for everyone, including the Chinese, and all of the countries exporting oil, but without refining capacity to match their demand. It would be to the Credit Crunch what Hurricane Katrina winds are to an afternoon breeze.

All the best

Andreas

[JonS]

JonS - those early war speeches look a lot more substantial to me than what is actually said today. I can't say I agree with your little one-liners. Maybe you might be stretching it just a bit to compare those speeches and what we get today. Maybe.

Yeah, I was exaggerating a little , and Churchill oozed gravitas from every word, but still I don't think you could really find any specific/explicit policy stuff in any of those speeches, not much more than candidates typically spiel: We're great, we're going to win, trust me, etc.

Certainly nothing like "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." That's a pretty specific policy goal, and it's time-bound too, which is even rarer.

[costard]

This is fun too

JonS, I realise this is an editorial for a newspaper, but it scares the **** out of me. The banks still don't get it... And I'm thinking that a row of nooses on the oak in the grounds of 1600 is looking good too: not much time left for that to be organised.:eek:

[gunnergoz]

(snip)... And I'm thinking that a row of nooses on the oak in the grounds of 1600 is looking good too: not much time left for that to be organised.:eek:

Hmmm, that sounds a bit too KKK for my tastes, but I would heartily endorse a tar and feathering of a few of the administration including the big cheese himself.

[Affentitten]

JonS - those early war speeches look a lot more substantial to me than what is actually said today. I can't say I agree with your little one-liners. Maybe you might be stretching it just a bit to compare those speeches and what we get today. Maybe.

I agree with Adam. Jon you are being even more glib than usual. There is plenty more in the Churchill speeches: Specific data, observations about events, mention of discussions and options etc.

And Churchill wasn't at the time trying to get himself elected President of the most powerful nation on Earth. But compare with:

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

"It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

"It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

[hoolaman]

Yeah his acceptance speech sounded to me like utter waffle. Even in the era of the soundbite, those are some loong sentences, and he said them so slowly.

Paraphrasing:

"If you are wondering if any US citizen could become president, he can. Because people voted, many of them for me. Because the USA is a democracy. Yay for us."

Now I'm no fan of Bush but at least you knew he wasn't smart enough to obfuscate with bull****. If he bothered to give you an answer it would be what popped into his head at that moment, and he didn't seem to care about anyone elses opinion enough to lie.

[JonS]

Churchill wasn't at the time trying to get himself elected President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

True, but I don't believe that - in the quote you gave - Obama was either

[Michael Emrys]

...we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

That's an important idea that has needed emphasis for a couple of decades now. It may turn out to be important that those words were spoken at just this time. Or it may not; time alone will tell. But I am glad that a major figure has spoken them and, I hope, will act on them in decisive ways.

Michael

[Bigduke6]

Here is a "To Do" laundry list compiled by The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/381701

It's all pretty much on the record, repeatedly, so it should be pretty simple to see if the Obama Presidency will do what it said it would do. So far, he seems to be being predictable: He said he would form a White House team, and focus first on the economy; we have already seen the first steps of that.

On the list, I really like the one about reviewing Bush's executive orders, every last one of them. Obama is a legitimate constitutional law scholar, he taught the subject on a graduate level for years at the University of Chicago, one of the best schools in the country. So alot of the previous administration's funny business with the Constitution is going right out the window early I bet, and it's hard to pick a priority more important than the Constitution.

[SgtMuhammed]

I would still bet the under on how much of the stuff Bush enacted will actually go away. History shows that government agencies and old laws are hard to get rid of once they come into being.

[costard]

I would still bet the under on how much of the stuff Bush enacted will actually go away. History shows that government agencies and old laws are hard to get rid of once they come into being.

That is true - stuff has to be really, really broken before a government is able to get in and fix it. Of course, if it's doing fine any amount of monkeying around is permissable.

[Andreas]

Yeah his acceptance speech sounded to me like utter waffle. Even in the era of the soundbite, those are some loong sentences, and he said them so slowly.

Paraphrasing:

"If you are wondering if any US citizen could become president, he can. Because people voted, many of them for me. Because the USA is a democracy. Yay for us."

Now I'm no fan of Bush but at least you knew he wasn't smart enough to obfuscate with bull****. If he bothered to give you an answer it would be what popped into his head at that moment, and he didn't seem to care about anyone elses opinion enough to lie.

Seriously, can you and Affentitten please get real? It's an acceptance speech, not a policy proposal. It is over the top, but it does what it is meant to do.

Look at this one for obfuscation with bull****:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041103-3.html

There's a time and a place for everything - apparently acceptance speeches are not it for detailed policy outlines. Bush's 2004 speech contained them (bring the boys home victorious, tax reform, better public schools, social security reform) but with absolutely no detail, and I would dare to argue he miserably failed to achieve them, even though in Iraq he laid the groundwork for that to happen now.

Or this one by the Gipper in 1980, nothing in it AT ALL:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/speech.archive/victory.html

Bush I in 1988 does not seem to be a detailed lecture on his policy proposals either, strangely enough:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DD113CF93AA35752C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The expectation that an acceptance should be anything but waffle appears quite strange to me.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

As for detail, this is apparently the transcript of a PC given yesterday:

Obama: "I will confront this economic crisis head-on"

Below are the remarks of President-elect Barack Obama at his first press conference:

This morning, we woke to more sobering news about the state of our economy. The 240,000 jobs lost in October marks the 10th consecutive month that our economy has shed jobs. In total, we’ve lost nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, and more than 10 million Americans are now unemployed. Tens of millions of families are struggling to figure out how to pay the bills and stay in their homes. Their stories are an urgent reminder that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime, and we must act swiftly to resolve them.

The United States has only one government and one President, and until January 20th of next year, that government is the current Administration. I have spoken to President Bush, and I appreciate his commitment to ensuring that his economic policy team keeps us fully informed as developments unfold.

Immediately after I become President, I will confront this economic crisis head-on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.

This morning, I met with members of my Transition Economic Advisory Board, who will help guide the work of my transition team in developing a strong set of policies to respond to this crisis. We discussed several of the most immediate challenges facing our economy and key priorities on which to focus on in the days and weeks ahead:

First, we need a rescue plan for the middle class that invests in immediate efforts to create jobs and provides relief to families that are watching their paychecks shrink and their life savings disappear. A particularly urgent priority is a further extension of unemployment insurance benefits for workers who cannot find work in the increasingly weak economy. A fiscal stimulus plan that will jump-start economic growth is long overdue – and we should get it done.

Second, we must address the spreading impact of the financial crisis on other sectors of our economy: small businesses that are struggling to meet their payrolls and finance their holiday inventories; and state and municipal governments facing devastating budget cuts and tax increases. We must also remember that the financial crisis is increasingly global and requires a global response.

The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces – hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry. The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I would like to see the Administration do everything they can to accelerate the retooling assistance that Congress has already enacted. In addition, I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis, and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars here in the United States. I have asked my team to explore what we can do under current law and whether additional legislation will be needed for this purpose.

Third, we will review the implementation of this Administration’s financial program to ensure that our government’s efforts are achieving their central goal of stabilizing financial markets while protecting taxpayers, helping homeowners and not unduly rewarding the management of financial firms that are receiving government assistance. It is critical that the Treasury work closely with the FDIC, HUD and other government agencies to use the substantial authority they already have to help families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes.

Finally, as we monitor and address these immediate economic challenges, we will be moving forward in laying out a set of policies that will grow our middle-class and strengthen our economy in the long-term. We cannot afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, health care, education and tax relief for middle class families.

My transition team will be working on each of these priorities in the weeks ahead, and I intend to reconvene this Advisory Board to discuss the best ideas for responding to these immediate problems.

Let me close by saying that I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead. We have taken some major actions to date, and we will need further actions during this transition and subsequent months. Some of those choices will be difficult, but America is a strong and resilient country. I know that we will succeed if we put aside partisanship and work together as one nation. And that is what I intend to do.

http://www.politicshome.com/mobile/blog.aspx?id=4381

I think there are quite a few concrete directions with a decent bit of detail in there. Took him three days from election.

I think some of these are quite mistaken in intent, but I do not think you can fault him for not being quite clear on what he wants, including what appear to be directions to the current administration, which appears extraordinary to me.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

On a separate note, make it 365:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/waiting-for-nebraska/

Shock-horror: Most liberal east coast elitist since JFK wins Nebraska EV.

Omaha is apparently not pro-America anymore.

All the best

Andreas

[hoolaman]

Seriously, can you and Affentitten please get real? It's an acceptance speech, not a policy proposal. It is over the top, but it does what it is meant to do.

Look at this one for obfuscation with bull****:

[snip]

The expectation that an acceptance should be anything but waffle appears quite strange to me.

All the best

Andreas

I don't expect any policy detail at all, but you'll note all the speeches you mentioned are fairly plainly spoken, humble, not to mention quite short. Maybe Obama's speech tried to match the historic nature of his victory, but it sounded a bit waffly and grandiose for my tastes. It may also just be his style of speaking that bugs me. I don't know, I just wasn't a fan.

[Andreas]

No disagreement there.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

BTW - has anyone told these guys from GOP that if you have trouble convincing the centre that you are able to govern, the best idea may not be to move to the right?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/conservatives-cite-defeats-as-reason-to-move-right/#more-7311

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/

Seems like a recipe for years in the wilderness to me, unless the Democrats really screw things up. I did not think handing the initiative to your opponent was smart planning?

All the best

Andreas

[Rob Ross]

Well done Yanks, now do the world one more favour and don't shoot him...

[costard]

BTW - has anyone told these guys from GOP that if you have trouble convincing the centre that you are able to govern, the best idea may not be to move to the right?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/conservatives-cite-defeats-as-reason-to-move-right/#more-7311

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/

Seems like a recipe for years in the wilderness to me, unless the Democrats really screw things up. I did not think handing the initiative to your opponent was smart planning?

All the best

Andreas

They're just indulging in some infighting and expressing their philosophical positions. The belief that the richest will do quite well without the rest of the society, thankyou very much, is still strong in the GOP. It won't be until the rich start to be taxed out of existence by the democracy they exploit that they will change their (publicly expressed) opinions and seek the aid that a larger membership can provide.

So, yes, for the GOP as for everyone else, circumstances are to get worse before they get better.